Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Captures contact details for the partnerships team,' revealing that it stores or transmits information, but it does not disclose side effects such as whether it sends an email, creates a lead record, or requires specific permissions. This adds some context but lacks rich behavioral detail.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every word earns its place. It avoids redundancy and is immediately informative.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple data-capture tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It explains the purpose and what is captured, but it does not mention what the agent should expect as a return value or confirmation. Given the low complexity and clarity of the action, this is a minor gap, so a 4 is appropriate.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds marginal value by framing the parameters as 'contact details' and linking them to the partnerships team, but it does not provide any additional meaning beyond what is already in the schema property descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Request information about adding a Resonance cashback program to a business.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the added detail 'Captures contact details for the partnerships team' clarifies the scope. This differentiates it from sibling tools like rsnc_agent_onboard_brand, implying the latter handles actual onboarding while this handles pre-onboarding requests.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies the use case (requesting info about adding a cashback program) but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like rsnc_agent_onboard_brand or rsnc_agent_create_event. There are no exclusions or when-not guidance, making the usage guidance merely implied rather than explicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.